Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: J.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Oct 7, 2005 4:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Why use FLAC instead of Shorten?

Shorten is non-free software; licensees can only distribute zero-cost copies, and the license attempts to restrict commercial use. For me, this alone makes Shorten a showstopper. The last thing I want are archives stored in a format I can't legally share and modify my programs to work with later on. This modification may involve commercial activity if I hire someone to do work for me or if I want to distribute copies of the improved program commercially. FLAC is free software; users have the freedom to share and modify the program for any purpose at any time so long as they pass on the same freedoms they had when they got their copy of the program.

Shorten's metadata storage ability is inferior to FLAC's.

Shorten compression doesn't produce as small of a file as FLAC compression of the same data.

FLAC files will play in some portable digital audio players.

FLAC supports 24-bit audio and beyond.

FLAC has integrated checksums.

This post was modified by J.B. Nicholson-Owens on 2005-10-07 11:54:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Forkbeard Date: Oct 7, 2005 6:22am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why use FLAC instead of Shorten?

I examined that comparison chart on the net, and it looked like FLAC held several small but real advantages. Honestly, for what I do, either would work fine, I'm sure. FLAC just looked a bit more modern and open and extensible. I really hope it endures.

I sure wasn't gonna pick that new Microso*t lossless format, was I?